MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905131004

Promoting early childhood development through a public programme: Wawa Wasi in Peru

2009· book-chapter· en· W2905131004 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Santiago Cueto, Gabriela Guerrero, Juan León, Álvaro Zevallos, Claudia Sugimaru

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericanae (AECID Library) · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordInternational Development Research CentreBernard van Leer FoundationIrish AidUNICEF
KeywordsHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a Young Lives study into the impact and perceptions of the Programa Nacional Wawa Wasi, a Peruvian government programme for impoverished children aged six to 48 months. Up to eight children spend five days a week at a Wawa Wasi centre where they are assisted by a carer carefully selected from the local community. The results suggest that children who have spent at least six months at a centre have similar indicators in gross motor, language and fine motor development to children who have stayed at home. Interviews with several key actors indicated a positive outcome: centres are environments where children are kept safe and fed nutritious meals, freeing mothers of worries and enabling them to work or study. However, Wawa Wasi’s goal of improving children’s development is not sufficiently prioritised. There is a need for Wawa Wasi managers to strengthen early learning components of the programme, to enhance the skills of those who provide care and to recognise the dedication of paid carers and volunteers who have contributed to Wawa Wasi’s success.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericanae (AECID Library)Same topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207